Recommended Free Tools
Seattle’s City Council voted on October 8, 2024, to formally oppose Washington Initiative 2117, which would have prohibited carbon-credit trading programs and repealed parts of the state’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA). At least 11 other Washington cities had taken similar positions, according to contemporaneous reporting. Voters rejected I-2117 in the November 5, 2024, general election, so the funding losses cities warned about were projected risks—not consequences caused by the initiative.
What Seattle did—and what happened to I-2117
Seattle adopted Resolution 32149, expressing the City Council’s and mayor’s official opposition to I-2117. GeekWire reported that the council approved the resolution 7–0, with Council President Sara Nelson abstaining. Councilmember Maritza Rivera, speaking in favor of the resolution, said, “We need to continue these efforts, not stop these efforts,” and, “We cannot afford to go backward in the fight against climate change.” Those remarks were Rivera’s, not a quotation from the full council. GeekWire’s October 8, 2024, report covered the vote.
The resolution was a local government’s formal position, not a statewide decision. GeekWire reported that at least 11 other Washington cities had passed similar declarations by October 8, in addition to King County and the Port of Seattle. Redmond’s council approved its opposition resolution on September 3, 2024. Washington voters later rejected I-2117; it did not take effect.
What I-2117 proposed
Seattle’s resolution quoted the ballot summary as proposing to bar state agencies from imposing any type of carbon tax credit trading, including “cap and trade” or “cap and tax” programs, regardless of whether resulting costs fell on fuel recipients or suppliers. It also would have repealed sections of the 2021 Climate Commitment Act, including provisions creating and modifying the state’s “cap and invest” program.
#1 Best Overall
Washington signed the CCA into law in May 2021. Under its cap-and-invest system, covered businesses must obtain allowances for greenhouse-gas emissions. The Associated Press reported that the requirement applied to businesses emitting at least 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and that the number of allowances available declines each year. In quarterly auctions, covered entities such as oil refineries and utilities bid for allowances. The system’s declining supply is intended to reduce emissions over time. The AP’s 2024 election report describes the law and the competing arguments over it.
In a March 4, 2024, statement, the Washington Department of Ecology said it was focused on its statutory duty to implement the CCA and ensure the success of cap and invest. The department explained that passage of I-2117 would repeal Chapter 70A.65 RCW and remove its authority under those repealed provisions. That statement described the initiative’s proposed legal effect at the time; it is not a description of the law’s current implementation details. The Department of Ecology’s statement provides its explanation.
Rank #2
Why Seattle and other local governments opposed it
Seattle’s resolution argued that CCA revenue supported investments in clean air and water, forests and farmland, wildfire resilience, salmon recovery and transportation. It said Seattle had received more than $26 million in CCA funding for programs including heat-pump access for low- and moderate-income households, $200 utility credits for low-income Seattle City Light customers, electric-vehicle charging for city fleets, and a renewable-generation siting study for Seattle Public Utilities facilities. These are amounts and program descriptions stated in the city resolution.
The resolution also described funding that could be put at risk if I-2117 passed:
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems- It estimated that $350 million in near-term grant and loan programs for cities and towns could lapse.
- It said the state transportation plan for fiscal years 2022–2038 depended on $5 billion in future CCA auction revenue.
- It warned of potential effects on future Seattle climate, waterway, environmental-justice, resilience and workforce projects.
These were projections in Seattle’s 2024 resolution, not actual losses from I-2117. Seattle Resolution 32149 sets out the city’s position and cited stakes.
Other local governments pointed to projects specific to their communities. A Redmond agenda memo said passage could put $1 million in grant funding at risk for the city’s first electric fire engine and a bicycle-and-pedestrian overpass. King County’s opposition motion cited countywide programs it said relied on CCA revenues, including transit operations and youth fares, zero-emission bus infrastructure, building energy retrofits, solar, urban-tree canopy, salmon habitat and flood reduction. These records state the local governments’ arguments and projected exposure. Redmond’s council record and King County’s record document their positions.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What supporters said about household costs
Supporters described the CCA as a “hidden gas tax” and argued that carbon pricing increased gasoline and electricity costs. The repeal campaign claimed the program added 43–53 cents per gallon, a range the AP attributed to the campaign and its cited Washington Policy Center source. That figure is a campaign claim, not an uncontested finding that the auctions caused that amount of increase at the pump. The AP also noted that Washington’s historic high gas price preceded the CCA auctions, so pump prices cannot be explained by the auctions alone.
The opposing argument was that repealing the program would remove revenue for climate, transportation, clean-air, wildfire and habitat projects. The AP reported that the state Office of Financial Management estimated repeal would mean $758 million less in state revenue in the next fiscal year and $3.1 billion over the following four years. Those were pre-election estimates of what could happen if the measure passed, not post-election losses. Later in 2024, Washington State Standard reported that an OFM analysis found 37 state agencies had CCA spending authority in the then-current biennium. The agency count describes that biennium, not a current 2026 total. Washington State Standard’s October 2024 report covers the agency analysis.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Best Value
What the vote means for the city funding warnings
Because voters rejected I-2117, the measure did not repeal the CCA or trigger the projected funding consequences described in the city resolutions. Those warnings explain why Seattle and other local governments opposed the initiative in 2024; they should not be read as evidence that the cited grants, projects or revenue were lost because of I-2117. The available election reporting establishes the measure’s rejection but does not establish current 2026 statutory details, appropriations or project-by-project disbursements.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
